As we apparently did evolve with two eyes, the odds is 1, as far as I understand it.
You would probably not even get your money back on a bet like that. They would confiscate your money as a stupidity tax.

If I understand this guy correctly he is saying we should all be blind. (Not to mention where do blind people or those with birth defects removing the eyes stand?)

The chance of an organic life form evolving a light sensitive cell is exsteme. Hence the large number of organic life that lacks light sensitive cells.

However given the large number of organic life forms the critera for those odds would eventually be met. After that, in acordance with genetics the odds of that lifeforms offspring having light sensitive cells is quite high.

Then given the popensitiy for genetic mutation to duplicate complete gene sequences the liklihood of that light sensitive cell doubleing is additionally quite high in all future generations of that origional life form.

This look at simplistic odds does not even take into consideration the survival advantages of light sensitive eyes and the further adaptation of those cells into the human eye.

"@Anon-e-moose: Wouldn't that mean that eyes are independently evolved several times per day?"

Just that what lettucereason failed to realise that, as fish evolved with two eyes, so did the amphibians, the reptiles, the birds, the mammals - including the apes, and the common ancestor from which the hominids ultimately leading to Homo Sapiens.

The common factor being they all have two eyes. Thus the probability being 1:1. That common factor in those being a link in that chain of evolution (as opposed to insects, arachnids et al) proves we evolved from basic life that started in the seas. And even before then, the single-celled life that became multi-celled. And previously - the Primordial Soup.

Fortunately between evolution and bilateral symmetry, the probability approaches 1. Actually, it would be much less likely for a random eye to be found (solo without a matching part) somewhere else on the body. That would just be creepy.

Litsten, evolution real simple. Those who were born with two eyes had more babies because two eyes allowed them to survive better. All their babies that had two eyes had more babies then those that did not. Eventually one eyed die out, two eyes dominate. Evolution, it only takes one mutation.

The probability of an organ evolving has nothing to do with the relative volume (not area, which is two-dimensional) of that organ to the volume of the body.

Also, two eyes clearly would not have developed totally independently of each other. It is much more likely, from a purely statistical point of view, that life forms started with one simple eye (or eyespot) and mutated to have two or more (like insects, which have hundreds of eyes arranged into a "compound eye").

Pretending that the development of the left eye is totally independent of the development of the right eye is just as nonsensical as it would be to say, "We'd have been just as likely to evolve eyes in our stomachs as we were to evolve them on the outside, where they can actually see things around us and be useful to us."